FReep this poll: Should Chief Illiniwek be a symbol of the University of Illinois?

Chicago Tribune ^ | April 28, 2004 | Chicago Tribune

[Land_of_Lincoln_John]

So far: Yes 53.2%

[Land_of_Lincoln_John]

Save the Chief from the PC crowd. Registration to the Tribune is FREE, you'll need to register to vote "Yes."

Chief Illinwek, 1944

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Preserve the Chief !

[Piranha]

I'm a Chicagoan and I don't see the benefit of keeping the mascot.

I've seen Chief Illiniwek artifacts from the 1950s and they show a cartoony, big, toothy, grinning idiot-face with a single feather in the back of his head.

Now, in order to presever the mascot and avoid the PC police, the University has turned him into a Native American cultural artifact. Great, but what does that have to do with football? If the state, or the university of Illinois, wants to sponsor a Native American museum somewhere, I'm all for it (even with state funding), but it seems silly to tie the dignity of Native Americans, or some such PC blather, into football halftime and make Chief Illiniwek into something he never was intended to be.

I don't think that he is insulting to Native Americans, and I recognize that many Native Americans have said so, but I see him as phony. The university is pretending to be culturally sensitive in order to keep an Indian at the football games.

It would be different if this were Dartmouth, which was started as a school for Native Americans (even though that mandate never was taken seriously).

[Campion]

So it's 1944, and the Chief is giving the Hitler salute? Was this picture taken on one of the Fuehrer's rare visits to Shampoo-Banana? ;-)

Keep the Chief, and keep his tomahawk in Evanston where it belongs. Go 'Cats!

[ncdrumr]

Bradley University is, for now, keeping their mascot ("Braves") because many alumni are speaking out against changing the name. The universities know that the alumni hold the money.

[Land_of_Lincoln_John]

Unfortunately, the liberals have made him into a symbol and are threatening the University's budget over this. In other words, extortion. State Senator Emil Jones, who surprise, a Dem said this:

Senate President Emil Jones issued an ultimatum to the University of Illinois on Tuesday: Get rid of Chief Illiniwek by next month or face tighter ''scrutiny'' of school spending.

In his bluntest terms yet, the Chicago Democrat raised the specter of budget cuts while comparing the U. of I. board of trustees to ''segregationists'' for supporting the costumed mascot that Native American critics decry as an unflattering racial stereotype.

''If our tax dollars are going to the university, and the university is using those tax dollars to permit stereotyping, then I think we should deal with it accordingly,'' Jones told reporters in his Statehouse office, which was filled with students who cheered the Senate leader.

When pressed whether he intended to hold the U. of I.'s proposed $700 million budget hostage this spring, Jones said cryptically, ''I didn't say anything specific. As we scrutinize all budgets, we will be scrutinizing the budget of the University of Illinois.''

Asked again later, Jones said, ''We are going to look at it very hard to see how those dollars are related to the chief.''

(Illinois) Senate leader: Dump the Chief (University of Illinois Mascot)

Chicago Sun-Times

[Piranha]

I think it is wrong to tie the budget to the mascot. I also don't think see a link to segregationism in keeping the mascot.

However, I don't understand why this should be seen as a conservative issue. Instead, I see it as an issue of good manners.

Decades ago, people thought it was a good idea to make a mascot out of an Indian. Like all mascots, he was cute and kind of cartoony. Then mores changed, some people got offended and they serioused him up a bit in order to keep him. Certainly, lots of alumni want him to stay.

Bottom line to me is that there is no organic connection between the school and Native Americans that makes it worthwhile to keep a lightning rod of anger, even though misguided. There are lots of Native Americans who aren't bothered by it (in fact, there was a Native American pow-wow at UIC's arena about a year ago, so there's no boycott of the university by Native Americans). But there are some Native Americans who don't like it, and there are other non-Native Americans who are offended by it.

Times have changed. What's so bad about changing the mascot?

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

PING

[MamaLucci]

What's so bad about changing the mascot?

Why not change the name of the state while we're at it?

[Piranha]

This Illiniwek controversey has been going on for well over a decade. He has become a symbol -- wrongly, in my view, for racism or, at a minimum, insensitivity by large institutions.

Illinois is the name of a state that, to my knowledge, has never been criticized by anyone. When a name becomes a problem, then I don't see a reason (other than cost) not to change it. Look at Beaver College. Look at the Ayds diet plan. Why is this a conservative issue?

[MamaLucci]

Why is this a conservative issue?

Because it is political correctness in action.
I guess as an American of Irish descent, I should be
offended by the name and mascot of the University of Notre Dame?

[bigdog]

As you point out, this controversy seems to involve racism. If you understand the history, pride and sincere love of the "Chief", racism would not be an issue.

In order to try out to become "Illiniwek" a student must be an Eagle Scout. He must choreograph his half-time dance in accordance with Native American tradition. The "costume" is designed in accordance with Sioux tradition (the original was hand sewn by Sioux in S. Dakota).

The "Chief" is not a mascot. He is an icon representing the proud traditions of a proud State honoring some original inhabitants.

He does not prowl the sidelines, "fight" with mascots of other teams, nor appear at pep rallies. The "Chief" does a dignified self choreographed dance during half time at home football and basketball games. He makes a proud entrance, a dignified and inspiring performance, and an elegant exit.

If we lose "Illiniwek" we'll lose part of ourselves.

[MamaLucci]

When a name becomes a problem, then I don't see a reason (other than cost) not to change it.

Then you are treading on a slippery slope, FRiend.
What if a group decides they are offended by the name
of the Washington Monument?

[Action-America]

YES 53%

no 47%

If a handful of Indians are so ashamed of their heritage that they don't understand the honor of having a sports team named after them, to honor the fighting skills of their ancestors, then those few Indians should dress up in business suits and change their names to Smith or Jones, so their false pride won't disgrace the true honor of their noble ancestors.

[purple haze]

Because it is political correctness in action.

The best definition I've heard for "political correctness" comes, perhaps surprisingly, from Bill Maher, when he says it is the tendency to give people's feelings priority over the truth. Under this definition, we can call much of revisionist history detrimentally PC. But I fail to see how removing a Native American mascot from a Big Ten university does any kind of disservice to truth.

I should be offended by the name and mascot of the University of Notre Dame

I'd say there's a big difference between founding a university and naming its mascot after one's own esteemed ancestors, and naming a mascot after a race of people one's ancestors characterized as savage brutes and systematically destroyed.

[purple haze]

If we lose "Illiniwek" we'll lose part of ourselves.

I'm sure the people the "Chief" is supposedly honoring would have had nothing but the deepest of sympathy....

[Piranha]

MamaLucci, I think the chance of anyone taking offence at the name "Washington Monument" is highly unlikely. Washington was the man's name, and "monument" is a word for a memorial that, so far as I know, has no offensive -- or potentially offensive -- connotations.

If the slippery slope is to avoid unnecessary actions that offend thousands of people, then I already am on that slope.

Bigdog, I understand your points. I personally have no issue with Chief Illiniwek. It doesn't offend me. As a matter of aesthetics I think that the UofI is giving up on some of the traditional fun of football games by keeping the Chief away from other teams' mascots and other activities, but to me that's not a reason for me to care whether he stays or goes. I believe that 99+% of Chief Illniwek's supporters are not racist, and even believe, as you do, that the Chief celebrates Native Americans.

However, until I see demonstrations of Native Americans in favor of keeping him, I expect that I'll continue to find him unnecessarily inflammatory.

[bigdog]

You obviously have never seen Illiniwek.

[groszko]

SAVE THE CHIEF! Damn it, I'm pretty sure the student referendum we all voted in (I'm a student here) produced a student vote supporting the Chief.

The best part of the entire anti-Chief movement, is seeing people of a dozen ethnicities, dressed to represent them, standing on Green Street (main drag in campus town) screaming things about 'Don't cram another culture down our throats!'.

This is sad. We've lost some of our largest donors, in the midst of a budget crisis, over the anti-Chief position of a handful of high-ranking administrators here.

I'm stocking up on *as much* Chief memorabilia as I can in the next few short weeks - the sick chance that he may be eliminated in this campaign of cultural sterilization....or at least cultures that represent deeply rooted tradition and principles....those just have to go. :/

[purple haze]

Actually, I have. I grew up in Illinois, and competed against the U of I in intercollegiate athletics. My point is simply that it's quite absurd for anyone to tell the descendants of people who walked the Trail of Tears that we're keeping an Indian mascot, however noble, so that we don't "lose a part of ourselves."